Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040007552023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/268/2023 Taluk Sonam Having his office and place of business at Sonam Building, Abotani Colony, Itanagar, Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh 791111 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 2 Ors. through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, having its office at North Block, New Delhi 110001 2:Commissioner of CGST and CX Age: 0 Occupation : Having his office at Itanagar Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 791110 3:Additional Commissioner of CGST and CX Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Commissionerate having his office at Itanagar Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : M Karbak, Preety Moyong,Tana Rini,V Mandal,Eho Menjo,Pritam Taffo Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, M K Boro,DSGI Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 21.01.2025 Heard Mr. E. Menjo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Boro, learned standing counsel for the CBIC. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.04.2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX (respondent no.3) and to refrain from giving effect to the said impugned order dated 28.04.2022 (Annexure-1). 3. The case of the petitioner is that the amount of service tax of Rs.61,51,878/- (Rupees sixty one lakh fifty one thousand eight hundred seventy eight only) was confirmed by the respondent no.3 under section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 along with interest and penalty thereon. It is projected that before passing of the impugned order, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard and it is projected that in the impugned order, the respondent no.3 has recorded that the petitioner had neither replied nor attended the personal hearing and therefore, ex parte adjudication was done. 4. In this regard, the petitioner projects that on receipt of the show- cause notice, the petitioner had appeared in the personal hearing after filing a show cause reply and therefore, the impugned order was passed without an application of mind. Page No.# 3/4 5. In this regard, the learned standing counsel for the respondents has submitted that he has specific instructions to the effect that the matter may be remanded back to the respondent no.3 by granting leave to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation/show-cause reply and annexed thereto to all the necessary documents on which he intends to rely upon. 6. In view of the statement made by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, this writ petition stands allowed by setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original No. 01/ST/ADJ/ADC/2022-23 dated 26.04.2022 by the Additional Commissioner of CGST and CX, Itanagar (respondent no.3), which was issued under the C No. IV(09)52/ADJ/ST/KS/JC/ITA/2021-22 dated 28.04.2022. 7. Accordingly, the matter relating to Demand-cum- Show Cause Notice under F No. IV(09)52/ADJ/ST/KS/ JC/ITA/2021-22 dated 22.10.2021 issued upon the petitioner by the Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, CGST and CX, Itanagar is remanded before the respondent no.3 for a fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 8. In this regard, it is provided that the petitioner shall submit a fresh show-cause reply within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order and submit all the documents on which petitioner intends to rely upon. 9. On submission of the said show-cause reply and documents afresh, the competent authority who is taking up adjudication thereof shall provide a date to the petitioner for attending the personal hearing. Thereafter, the competent authority shall pass a final Order-in-Original in accordance with law. Page No.# 4/4 10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 11. There shall be no order as to cost. 12. It is made clear that as the merit of the case has not been entered into, this order is not intended to be cited as a precedent. JUDGE Comparing Assistant